User talk:Justgabrielle

Hi my name is Gabrielle, I am using this page in order to engage with and produce my assignments for my Digital Media Module in University. Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #1: What Makes a Good Wiki
As an internet lover I have always deemed my experiences using various social media platforms as very positive. After starting my fashion blog over a year ago social media has become a very large part of my life when it comes to networking with other bloggers and increasing the reach of my blog. I feel that social networks allow people to reach a wider variety of people that have the same interests as them as well as to gain new interests from others. I mainly use my social networks on the basis of sharing ideas and my thoughts on various topics such as, fashion and lifestyle. Although some things may cause certain backlash I feel that there will always be a majority of other users that agree and admire your sharing of information.

On the basis of using social media and blogs in order to improve workflow, I feel that you can get a great understanding for a topic by reading other peoples views as it can sometimes be quite difficult to understand the topic you are looking into when reading academic articles. I have used blogs multiple times when reading into certain topics in university but I feel that although it can be useful, using ideas from blogs in my essays may be seen as "unreliable" which is a similar dilemma when it comes to using Wikipedia.

Throughout school we were taught not to cite Wikipedia in any of our essays, this has led to my reluctance to use Wikipedia at all. Therefor leading me to feel that this type online collaboration differs from the use of other social media platforms which allow live collaboration where people can communicate and debate about a topic almost instantly through comments and likes, whereas Wikipedia has this image of being almost ratifiable despite its supposed “unreliability”, discouraging this ease of collaboration with the platform. Most people I know have the tendency to only use Wikipedia for ease of access to information and not for it’s option to edit information. Therefor I feel that the qualitative difference between the use of social media and the use of Wikipedia is based on the ease of collaboration as well as running stereotypes between the two platforms as social media is actively encouraging constant collaboration whereas Wikipedia is less attractive to the common user to input information and interact with outside the realms of gaining some information on a certain topic. Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wiki Exercise #1


Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This post is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Less instrumentally, and more in relation to this particular post, you have pointed to a really interesting comparison between wiki collaboration and blogging. The obvious preference for blogging (perfectly understandable given your experience and proficiency) perhaps alerts you to the fact that wiki collaboration is not as instant and the workflow can seem a little jarring compared with more wysiwyg interfaces. However, there is a real opportunity here for you to think through statements such as social media is actively encouraging constant collaboration - what kind(s) of collaboration are we talking about here? What kind(s) of interaction? And how does this differ in purpose and quality? Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would go a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, as you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this will make a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work. You could try to frame some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!). Certain phrases such as the majority doesn't and believes most of what is stated in the site whereas mostly the opposite for social media platforms and I feel wikipedia as a platform is a lot less receptive of these kinds of communications due to the awkward long winded processes in order to communicate in comparison to a simple like button or comment box are assertions. You need to establish such cl;aims by rooting your argument in evidence(of various kinds) in order to authoritatively state these as indeed the case. I'm not saying that you are incorrect, but appeal to evidence is very useful in such contexts.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gabrielle, I completely agree with you when you talk about having some reluctance to use wikipedia as a legitimate source of information - like you, I always take what I read with a pinch of salt. However, having learnt about the processes involved with editing entries on wikipedia and the actual rigorous fact-checking and citations that are used, I may be more inclined to use it as a trustworthy source. With also knowing that it is a possibility to communicate with editors and creators, I may be more likely to question information I might doubt, and ask directly where they found this. It would perhaps be useful for other users to know this, making the platform more collaborative rather than a using it as a consumer. Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Ex #1
Hi Gabrielle, I agree with your point about reading and viewing materials on social media to gain a better understanding on topics that are happening in the world. I do this as well, but do you think we just consume the information around us and we only gain knowledge from one side of the argument or debate, as we tend to follow accounts on social media that we agree with. You made a good point about not trusting Wikipedia as a source in essays etc., I am on the same page and am reluctant to use Wikipedia as a source for trustworthy information, especially knowing that anyone can edit a wikipedia page. susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Wiki Exercise #1
Hey Gabrielle, I completely agree with you when you talk about the use of social media in connecting and reaching out to people who share your interests. I would imagine that, being a blogger, your audience and the way in which you use social media platforms will be different from mine. I also often use blogs or non-academic websites to help me understand certain topics more, as I agree academic articles and books can be quite daunting and hard to understand at first, and I think this can also be linked to the way we consume news today? I know of very little people who will sit and read a newspaper instead of checking twitter accounts or online news websites. I can also relate being scared into using Wikipedia at school and university, but this was before I learned of Wiki books, or any of the features used to edit and comment on other people's ideas, and therefore I would now be more reluctant to use it to help me write an essay, do you feel the same? Cathym97 (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
If I was to be compared to a lot of my friends you could say that I am very visible online as most of my social media accounts, apart from Facebook, are not private. This is mainly down to the fact that I use most of these accounts in correlation to my blog and use them to increase traffic. This means that I have pictures, tweets and various blog posts that are available for the majority to read and consume. I have chosen to be very open on my online profiles as I use them as an outlet and like to see collaboration on the things I post as I feel it is nice to be a part of online communities. However, I know the majority of information I post is now completely out of my control.

When thinking about Van Koten, he speaks a lot about narrative and essentially that is what I have developed in my online presence. Most people when looking through my social platforms could determine what city I live in, where I go to university, what I study, what I do in my spare time and basically could determine an entire narrative of my life. Although that can be quite dangerous in terms of online safety and some empirical issues with online identity such as security, privacy and production and consumption.

Security is a big problem that I personally could face as with so much personal information available about me online it would be easy to essentially copy my identity and use this however they wanted, for example the TV show and movie Catfish shows prime examples of this happening and most activities like this go unseen by the actual person who's identity has been stolen. Trolling is another huge problem that can often effect people emotionally and could count as online bullying. Luckily I have never experienced anything like this but a lot of other bloggers I know have and it can effect them a lot. The final empirical issue is in regards to production and consumption, as a marketing and business student I am very open to the idea of using information from social accounts in means of selling products and is actually what I find most interesting about the role however, I understand that other online users may be less receptive to their information being used unaware. In regards to social media careers, this is also something I am very supportive of, as a girl who is in the development of my own social media career as a blogger.

Overall, despite the fact that I am so visible online and possibly in danger of the issues that I mentioned I do not feel exposed and would rather have the information about me available rather than not have it there. This is mainly down to how much my blog and online presence has affected my confidence in an extremely positive way. Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Wiki Exercise #2: Visibility and Data Trails
Hi Gabrielle, I've found what you have written really interesting. I feel I have covered similar points in my wiki exercise. I agree there are many people out there that can easily steal peoples information, and like you, not very much of my information is very private. I didn't find this scary before, but now reading up on this topic, it has given me a greater insight into the situation. I understand as a blogger, the whole point is to keep everything accessible for anyone to view and consume and luckily as you have said, this has benefited you. On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who have received a lot of backlash and have since become a lot more private with whom they share their information with. Sometimes people are forced to start their online identity again and make new social media accounts. I feel this is unfair, as social media is a personal platform and should be used the way you want to, and no one should ever feel they are bullied out of this.

Do you agree that when you post something it never goes away, even if you delete it? I did not read into this too much, as physically on most social medias the image / post does disappear. But, after starting this wiki page I've seen first hadn't that you are able to see edits and track everything back. I'm sure this is the case with many other social media accounts. I can see that I am not as visible online as you are, as I do not run my own blog for anyone to consume, but I do feel I maybe am too visible online. At what point would you stop posting information for the public to see? Do you have a limit as to what you share?

I am wondering how you are able to make links throughout your wikipedia page? It would be greatly appreciated if you showed me how! Thanks.

susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Susanne, I am glad you four my post interesting and can agree with a lot of the points that I had made. I can understand how you can now find this quite scary after looking into it in our classes and although it can seem quite scary I have always been aware about the dangers of the internet and by putting myself online I am consenting to the use of my information and accepting the fact that I may be more vulnerable because of that. i agree that when you post something it may never go away as after something is seen it cannot be unseen and of course everything has a data trail which can be unfortunate in many instances like cyber bullying if someone was to post a hurtful comment or a damaging picture it may never go away. But in the same instance for the bully as they will permanently be hindered by the hurt that they caused.

I think the point where I stop is to not write about anyone apart from myself because it is not my place to share things about other people and their views as well as making sure nothing of what I post can damage another person as I feel there is already so much hate in the world and people should spend more time lifting each other up instead of shutting them down.

In regards to your question on links, it is super easy! All you have to do to make a word a link is to put square bracket ( [ ), then the link URL, the word you want to say, then another bracket ( ] ). For example, if i wanted to link my blog and for it to say the word blog I would put [ whatwouldgabrielledo.com blog ] If I didn't explain it properly I found a wiki article telling you how to do it and I will link it HERE Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justgabrielle, I feel concerned about one part of your text that raised the topic of stolen identity. I have encountered this problem few years ago. My Facebook account hadn’t been hacked but someone made a new Facebook account with my personal informations (photos, where I live, what I study, what I like…). I wasn’t really concerned about identity online before what happened to me. I find it ingenious that you talked about Catfish tv shows because I think the prevention of online identity can be a lot more efficient for teens and young adult with a tv show than traditional intervention from school teachers or parents. --Sarahsarah22 (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Information Overload
After reading a speech transcript by Larry Sanger called “Information is easy, knowledge is difficult”, it has become clearer to me that despite the internet having a vast amount of information which can seem daunting, Sanger has enlightened me of the fact that even before the internet there was already a vast amount of information in the forms of TV shows, movies and books that would already take more than a lifetime to consume. So due to this new perspective, just as I would never intend to consume every movie made or read every book written I do not intend to consume all the information that is available on the internet.



Although it is easy to get distracted by the amount of things that are available online I do not feel that it is necessary to be involved in every piece of information available and a way to deal with this fact is to only be involved in and taking information that will eventually be useful to you and can aid you in your interests. Some contributing factors to these point I have made is that I feel that is very easy to be sucked into the depths of the internet and see and read things that will make no real improvement on your life such as, trolling and although I may find “fail” videos hilarious I agree that they are really just a waste of time.

An article from The Telegraph by Nicholas Carr goes into detail the effects the being constantly distracted has on our cognitive abilities saying “only when we say close attention to a new piece of information are we able to associate it meaningfully and systematically with knowledge already established in memory”, when thinking about this quote it is clear that by being constantly distracted by the information available online or by other activities you are unable to fully concentrate and finish a task at hand.

In relation to out wiki project, with other assignments due at around the same time which I know is similar to others in my group, it is difficult to fully concentrate on the project fully. However, after developing an easy structure on our discussion pages and dedicating sections to certain group members the workflow has increased and become a lot more manageable in terms of keeping on task. I feel that in regards to the amount of information online on the subject matter it is hard to determine what information is relevant and will add to the project, this is related to what was said in Sanger’s speech as he claims that the overload of information available devalues knowledge making certain knowledge seem “less distinctive and less attractive” as in order to gain a true perspective it is necessary to compare and contrast all the information due to the amount there could be on one particular subject. Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justgabrielle! I really enjoyed reading your post! I was really I interested in the point you made about the wealth of information we can obtain from books and video recordings etc. Thinking about the article you quoted, do you think its fair to say that many of us absorb information from offline sources,like written texts for example, better than online sources? I personally find I take in verbal information like lectures and documentaries much better than reading as I really have to listen to verbal information and focus. I'd be interested to know your opinion! Thanks! Caroline WikiHacker (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Hey I really enjoyed reading your thoughts here, I agree with your points on there having always been too much information out there to consume. Your points from other articles on this are very interesting too. I agree that even if you had a goal to read or watch films till you die, you wouldn't even make a dent in the amount of content there is out there to consume. You would be exceptionally well read or have vast information in way more films than most, but there would always be more out there you haven't heard of or seen. I also agree that it is extremely difficult to concentrate and never fully being able to focus entirely on the task at hand. I do this myself, even right now, I have the breakfast club sound track on and was singing along which made writing this comment take way longer than it should have.

I too found it hard to concentrate fully on the wikiproject. I have tabs of readings open which makes it so much harder to concentrate on just one at a time. I personally find the discussion pages on here nearly impossible to use. I find it hard to read through them and figure out who is saying what. But after some time, my group has been able to set up an easy to see list of who is doing which topics to navigate the page and make sure no one is overlapping. BethIrish (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey I think your thoughts about how we have always had some sort of information overload no matter which form of media we are getting it from. I think that you're right that the internet has perhaps made it easier to manage because instead of the length of a whole book we are able to get our information in smaller doses. I also think that we can actually tailor what we see to our interests, such as on Facebook and Twitter you often only see the information from the pages and people that you follow. I also agree that it is difficult to concentrate on what you're doing with your phone next to you. It can be linked to the fear of missing out as I find myself constantly checking my phone even when I should be doing my work and then get distracted and move onto other things.

I think it is like this with most projects and essays because everything seems to be at the same point in the semester which often creates a problem with organisation. I also think the discussion pages of these are hard to follow so you feel like you should be doing more. Other than this complication I think it is an unusual way of doing an assignment. SuzanneClark22 (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this! I especially like what you said at the start (re Sanger), I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but it's so true and I think it'd benefit a lot of people to think like this! It's true that even though there is so much information out there for us to consume, this does not mean that we will consume it all, or respectively be distracted by it all! Something that's really important for me is just to make sure I keep things balanced. Like right now, I'm doing research for the Wikibook chapter despite how much I'd love to just watch Netflix/scroll through Twitter or FB. But I know that once I've gotten to my desired word count, I can do those things. I don't know if you are the same, but I always set a goal for my work and once I've reached that I can chill! I also agree that the discussion page has been really useful in having a bit of a clearer thought process. I feel like by having everything organised by headings etc it becomes more organised in my own mind. I'm finding it easy to come up with ideas for what I want to write, but actually writing them is a different story! Do you feel the same? Liaa13 (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lia Im glad you enjoyed my piece of writing! Its great seeing different perspectives on things! I wish I could say the same about my motivation this evening but I seem to have taken a mind block when it comes to this project at the moment! Have too many things on at the moment but I will perceiver! Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I really enjoyed what you had to say here, particularly the point about online distractions affecting our cognitive abilities. I headed over to The Telegraph to find Nicholas Carr’s article and it was a great read. It’s got me thinking about the wider effects of my Internet use. It’s quite jarring to read some of the research cited in the article, like how the ways we approach and consume information online potentially rewires parts of our brain that subsequently influence how we perform in our offline work. It’s concerning to learn how quickly the neural circuits in our brain change and adapt to align with our online habits.

I’m reading a follow up interview Carr did on the subject (I don’t think this counts as link-to-link distractions because it’s relevant?!) and he seems even more concerned with how technology is damaging our attention spans. He makes a really good point by comparing smartphones to televisions - we have and continue to limit our tv watching because we know its long term effects are damaging yet we apply so little thought to the excessive interaction we have with our phones.Tonyvall (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I think you make a lot of good points in this piece! Your response to the distraction portion of this assignment is point. I can definitely relate to getting sucked into the internet. There is so much information out there that it can be easy to get distracted. I agree that this can be a positive, since you come across information you may not have seen. However, it is equally likely that you may end up on Youtube or social media by the end. With regard to the Wikibook project, I definitely agree that organizing and managing the discussion page made a huge difference for me. It seemed so daunting, but everyone giving ideas and collaborating has made it seem easier. Charkleske (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! You make a great point presented in Sangler's speech, information overload already being a thing before the internet was not something I thought about when thinking about this subject. I too have read the article you mention and it made for a very interesting read, but I think the point about gaining information only really in relation to what we already know is important - it might be one of the reasons that we disregard some information over others when searching for something. As being a member of your group, I can 100% sympathise with these issues, and although I didn't mention it in my entry, I do think that the organised layout has helped massively when coming to form discussions and ideas! Helizacarr (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibooks Project Reflective Account
In regards to sharing ideas, links and feedback with others in the group I feel that it was so helpful in completing the task. Personally it was a sigh of relief when someone had found something that related to the section you were working on when you were struggling. It was like having a fresh set of eyes that aren't drained by the topic because there working on a different topic and I felt that was the best part about doing the project. It was also good that feedback and peer assessment was encouraged and demanded of this process as you had a legitimate reason to constructively criticise in order to make the work the best it could be. The sharing of ideas was really the main part of the development of the project and it was good how people were bringing background knowledge into the topic for example I know about business and I brought that into my section of the chapter which allowed me to develop my personal interests while intertwined with the project subject matters.

In regards to maintaining engagement with the themes and concerns of the module I think that by establishing topic headings and subheading so early on in the process it really helped guide your thought process without allowing you to wander astray from the topics. Our group sectioned our discussion page in order to allow us to communicate effectively between different topics which made all relevant subject matter easy to find and anything that was open to be used in a variety of places was then placed in a “Source Suggestions” section so that you could pick and choose what could fit into your subject.

In regards to writing for small supportive audiences in a research environment it could seem quite daunting as your work and personal research can be critiqued by anyone, not just university markers and lecturers but everyone that has access to the site. It made you aware of the pressures of writing something academic like a book for people to read publicly, obviously on a much smaller scale. I personally didn't end up having interactions on the “Tea-Room” however after seeing some group members participate and ask questions in this environment it seemed like a very friendly community that has been built up on Wikibooks and Wikipedia who all have one aim and that is to make the content the best it can be.

This project really did make me aware of the benefits of peer-review and how much better your work can be by collaborating with another person who might have new and different ideas to you. I, before was very much a “do-it-yourselfer” and hated the idea of other people “doing the work for me” (well thats how I saw it) and I often kept everything to myself to ensure all the work i did was mine. However, after completing this project I am more aware of the practical uses of discussion and debate and how they can work to essentially make your work ten times better.

When reflecting on how writing in publicly-viewable spaces shapes the way that people engage with one another in regards to the Wiki Project, I do feel that writing in that context has made it a lot easier as I said previously to collaborate further in real life expectations. The community base that is on these types of collaboration sites are very supportive of one another in comparison to social platforms and that was not surprising to me before starting this project as I have never heard of any social feuds happening in the realms of Wikipedia however it does draw attention to the fact that this kind of support academically and during studies should be more common in everyday life as it can help you develop your own ideas or gain new ones that will help you along this education process and I believe eventually make you a more collaborative person when it comes to your career choice. Justgabrielle (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I can totally relate to what you said about the relief when someone found something relating to a section you were writing on. I was really struggling with the Google Effect section but someone found a study for me and added it in and it was a huge weight off of my shoulders! I think that was one of the great things about this project, it was definitely a team effort and we all really helped each other out. I also found it rather daunting that anyone could access, edit (and judge) the chapter and my writing, but also quite cool in a way as it is such a unique platform! I can also very much relate to your comment about being a "do-it-yourselfer" as I'm totally the same way and was definitely sceptical about this project upon first learning about it for that very reason, but I actually found myself enjoying it as it, in some ways alleviated some pressure off having to do everything yourself (like with people finding things to help with something you were writing on), and like you it has taught me some practical uses of group work also! Liaa13 (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Content (weighted 20%)
The Introduction section here is a little perfunctory, but the main Concepts section is where all of the key sections are mapped out. Each section has its own descriptive short paragraph, summarising the discussion and concept in fairly neat and concise ways. The overall effect of this is that the chapter is given a sense of narrative and structure from the outset. Whilst the discussion in various sections doesn’t always live up to this, and there are one or two inconsistencies, this ought not to diminish too much for the achievements evidenced here.

As mentioned, the sections themselves generally contain good content, but there are inconsistencies regarding the strength of argument, and citation of sources. An obvious example of this would be the first history section, for which citation of sources doesn’t occur until the paragraph on the 1990s!

The unusual step of including a survey and posting the results here is an extremely useful one. Something that absolutely HAS to be thought through in ALL future work is that if one is conducting a survey (even if for demonstration purposes, as included here) or indeed ANY work with people, one must go through an ethics approval process – this is to ensure no harms (relative or absolute) occur for researchers or participants. This process will become more apparent later in the degree programme, particularly in final year projects. The use of interwiki links connecting all of the sections of the chapter together is both very useful and evidences good levels of project management, delegation of workflow, and joined-up collaboration. One thing that would have benefitted the chapter enormously, is if these interwiki links could have been extended to include more reference to other chapters in the book. For example, you have a subsection on Surveillance uses – there could have been interwiki links to various relevant sections in other chapters (especially, perhaps, Privacy in a Digital Age chapter).

Plenty of evidence of reading, secondary research and application of ideas from peer-reviewed sources, as well as other sources from popular culture and journalistic materials. This does tend to vary quite considerably from section to section, however, with some sections oddly drawing from newspaper online articles around topics for which there are materials available in the further reading lists (the subsections on internal effects, the Google effect and others, where there are some obvious aspects of that reading e.g. Vaidhyanathan and his book on the Googlization of Everything). Excellent section on FOMO.

The references section evidences research, reading and sharing of resources. However, the depth and range of sources could be considerably improved.


 * Excellent. Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Wiki Exercise Portfolio (Understanding weighted 30%)
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is overall (and particularly in relation to Understanding and Engagement elements), that should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band, relative to the descriptor


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a good range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to a fairly wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * clear evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to a variable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Satisfactory engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and fairly well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of somewhat limited judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures